Robert B. Schwartz is President of Achieve, Inc. and a member of theAdministration, Planning and Social Policy Faculty at Harvard GraduateSchool of Education.

What are we to make of the Third International Mathematics and ScienceStudy (TIMSS)? Certainly those commentators who believe that Americanschools are in crisis and that radical restructuring is required have beengiven fresh ammunition. Now that the 12th grade TIMSS results are out, itis clear that the performance of our schools gets progressively weaker asstudents move from elementary to middle to high school. It is hard to seehow anyone can take comfort in the fact that, of the 21 nations thatparticipated in the 12th grade tests, U.S. students outperform only Cyprusand South Africa in general math and science knowledge. Perhaps even moredamaging to our self-esteem is the revelation that our most accomplishedstudents -- those taking advanced mathematics and physics -- are at thebottom of the pack when compared to their counterparts in other countries.The fact that the 12th grade pool did not include the Asian nations whichroutinely outperform us makes the results even more sobering.

Given our national penchant for averting our eyes from bad news, it waspredictable that some in the education community would attempt to dismissor discredit TIMSS, but a recent front page New York Times story (March 2,1998) went overboard. "Freedom in Math Class May Outweigh Tests" assertedthe headline, and several prominent academicians proceeded to tell us thatthese tests don't measure what is important, that the continuing robustperformance of our economy is proof that our educational system is doingits job, and that any attempt to improve the performance of our students onthese international assessments risks stifling the very qualities ofcreativity and innovation that we most prize in our society.

If the public debate about the meaning of these results is conducted onlybetween the doomsayers and the "Don't worry, be happy" crowd, we will allbe the losers. We will miss an opportunity to benefit from the importantlessons of TIMSS, which are found not in the comparative ranking ofcountries but in the extraordinary sub-studies that accompanied theadministration of these tests.

The three TIMSS studies that have been reported to date have profoundimplications for American education. The first study, focusing ontextbooks, strongly suggests that, in the absence of clear agreements aboutwhat students are supposed to know and be able to do at each grade orcluster of grades, our textbooks err on the side of inclusiveness, treatinga huge number of topics superficially rather than a handful of topics indepth. This is in sharp contrast to the math and science texts in higherperforming nations, which are closely aligned with a more focused andsharply defined curriculum.

The second study examines videotaped classrooms in Germany, Japan, and theU.S., and this is enormously instructive in what it reveals about thestructure of the lessons and the focus of pedagogy in the three countries.Simply put, the American lessons, especially when contrasted with Japaneseclassrooms, focus much more on procedures and skills, and much less onconcepts, deductive reasoning, and understanding.

Finally, there are detailed case studies of the same three countriesdesigned to supplement the survey data obtained from teachers, students,administrators, and academic experts. The case studies were structured toelicit information about such topics as national standards, teachertraining, grouping practices, and the non-school factors affecting thelives of students. The findings are illuminating, especially thoseregarding ability grouping (we track much earlier than either Germany orJapan) and the preparation and induction of teachers.

What lessons should Americans draw from the TIMSS studies? In my view,these studies confirm the wisdom of the path we have begun -- that ofsetting clear, high standards for what we expect all students to know andbe able to do -- but they also underscore the crucial importance ofaligning everything else we do with those standards, from the initialpreparation of teachers and the selection of texts and other curriculummaterials, through the design of new assessments and the ongoingprofessional education and support of teachers. This is no small task in acountry where responsibility for making educational policy is dispersed andfragmented. However, without tighter alignment of the various elementsthat typically are grouped together under the heading of systemic reform,it is hard to see how we can make significant improvements in oureducational performance.

One of the ironies of the hand wringing over the TIMSS results is that itis in mathematics and science that we have the greatest likelihood ofmaking real progress, for it is in these fields where we have the broadestagreement about standards, the strongest state and districtinfrastructures, and the most promising curriculum development tied to thestandards. Not incidentally, it is in these fields that we also have thestrongest national leadership and resources for systemic reform, thanks tothe work of NSF, NCTM, the National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, and suchexemplary R&D organizations as TERC.